Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 26

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep --Taelus (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Appling County Comprehensive High School → Appling County High School (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Request deletion, no articles link to Appling County Comprehenve High School Mjrmtg (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are links on the web that refer to the school as Appling County Comprehensive High School, so I'm assuming that as late as 1985 the school was known as that. However, it's only an assumption as a search for the word 'comprehensive' on the school district site yields zero returns. I have found bios from past instructors that use the term, however. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 'Appling County Comprehensive High School' is given as an alternative name in the article. It is used on websites, for example here. This is therefore a plausible search term. The absence of incoming links is not relevant for a redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, thus also turning Scott Brooker into an article as there is no longer a requirement for disambiguation. --Taelus (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Scott Brooker (Estate Agents) → Category:Lists of companies of the United Kingdom (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Non-notable subject, redirects to a Category | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redirecting a proper noun to a relevant category is sometimes fine but not here. This redirect doesn't assist a searcher and would only serve to annoy. If closed as 'delete', then Scott Brooker needs fixing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross-namespace redirect. Especially since it doesn't even make sense. i kan reed (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was only created two days ago so nothing outside of WP is likely to have incoming links. DElete before it causes trouble.

EXCuse my sodding keyboard, by the injuducious application of alcohol both to myself and my keyboard, I do tend to get throughoneabout every two months. Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete --Taelus (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Scott Brooker (musician) → List of jazz saxophonists (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Non-notable musician, redirects to a list article | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redirecting a subject to a relevant list is sometimes fine but not here. There are several saxophonists of this name but none appear notable. I would note that the nominator has already removed the subject from the list, here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy close, as keep, at the request of the nominator with no dissension to keeping. It is open to the nominator to restore the article, as a normal editorial action, if he so wishes. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Disney XD (France) → Disney XD (links to redirect • history • stats) 

It isn't useful to redirect the article, it's supposed to be an article. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 06:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as out of process. Nothing for us here; the nominator doesn't want the redirect deleted or retargetted, he wants the article back, and this is not the forum to determine the notability of the underlying page. This is a straightforward editorial dispute. The way forward would be for the nominator, if he is convinced that the page can meet notability requirements, to boldly revert back to the article and then defend that action on the article's talk page and/or at AfD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects can trivially be turned into articles where appropriate. Does not require discussion. Otherwise redirect seems appropriate for now. i kan reed (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we can speedy close this discussion.--jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]